The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a resolution approving Sweden and Finland’s bids for NATO membership, demonstrating the bipartisan consensus on expanding the military alliance further on Russia’s border.
The measure passed the Senate in a vote of 95-1-1, with only Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) voting “no,” and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voting “present.”
In an op-ed published in The National interest, Hawley explained that he was against expanding NATO into Sweden and Finland because he believes the US should be expanding its military resources into the Asia Pacific to counter China.
An amendment that Paul tried to add to the resolution would have emphasized that Article 5, NATO’s mutual defense clause, does not supersede congressional authorization for war. But the amendment failed in a vote of 10-87.
The Senate vote was needed to ratify US approval for Sweden and Finland to join the military alliance. All 30 NATO members need to approve the Nordic nations’ memberships, and according to The Hill, the Senate vote makes the US the 20th country to do so.
In July, the House voted on a resolution supporting Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids that passed in a vote of 394-18, with only Republicans voting against the measure.
Turkey is the only NATO member that has said its legislature might block Sweden and Finland from joining the alliance. Ankara initially blocked the Nordic countries from applying but lifted the objection after signing a memorandum at the NATO summit in June.
Turkey accused Sweden and Finland of supporting the PKK, a Kurdish militant group Ankara considers a terrorist organization. Under the memorandum, the two Nordic nations agreed to respond to Turkey’s extradition request for suspected PKK members and other alleged “terrorists.” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the Turkish parliament could block Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids if they don’t comply.
Best reporting on the issue, here.
“In an op-ed published in The National interest, Hawley explained that he was against expanding NATO into Sweden and Finland because he believes the US should be expanding its military resources into the Asia Pacific to counter China.”
So 96-0.
So, how much money are these two countries going to defend the USA? Zero.
How much money is the USA going to pay to defend these two countries? A lot.
US taxpayers $crewed again.
Those two countries are more capable of defending themselves than almost any other NATO nations (Excluding K, France and the US) they help by closing the Suwalki Gap and are therefore going to be a net asset to the US in NATO.
As in the costs for the US is going to be less – these countries will not want US troops stationed on their soil and they offer a lot when it comes to hardware and men at arms.
In short admitting these two will make NATO’s north Eastern front much less exposed and reduce the Russians ability to isolate the Balkan countries not to mention practically closing the Baltic sea to the Russian fleet.
What or where is the Suwalki Gap? (I’m assuming it has no relation to the GAP clothing stores and I, of course believe I am correct in that assumption…)
If we effort to (practically) close the Baltic Sea, to the Russians, might the Russians be pissed?
The Suwalki gap is the narrow gap of land between Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.
If we did so in peace time, sure, however the fact that if Russia gets in conflict with NATO then sailing out of Leningrad you have to pass through NATO waters does the same.
I.e. just like storing foreign currency reserves in Western banks was a bad idea having fleet assets in Leningrad is equally bad once Finland is in NATO if there is to be a conflict.
That potential means that even in peacetime the value of Leningrad as a fleet base is severely diminished.
Thank you for your in-depth reply Michael64.
Yes, all which raises the likelihood of recourse to nukes.
Yes, it is what fools will do.
Could you tell me how you see a path for the Russians to ‘win’ by using nukes? I only ask because the USSR and after them the Russians have been the only side to rule out first use of nuclear weapons?
So if NATO is not attacking the Russians, how and why would the Russians use nukes to obtain what kind of advantage – nukes after all has a very high likelihood of having the few of us that survives using stone age tools to go on.
The only nuclear weapons ever used was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the war, after the Americans had already won the war. That were two big war crimes, so was Dresden, just conventional bombs when the war was really over there was no military justification to kill refugees in Dresden mostly women and children.
I agree with those points, but I do not see the relevance when debating this, none of these acts were done by NATO.
The only other alternative is surrender, … which they never did, either to Bonaparte or Hitler.
So we agree with nukes there is no path to improving the situation for either party.
Only if you hold to the view that shunning disgrace and subjection and preserving dignity and integrity are valueless.
How do these apply to the use of nukes?
1. Surrender signifies loss of cultural heritage, identity.
2. All other weapons foreclosed.
3. Nukes signify fight to the death. Thereby preserving transcendent value, dignity, what we used to call the cultural soul (cf. Leonidas & the 300).
Just whom is it you believe would have to surrender? the West is and was very unlikely to attack the Russians but had the problem that the Baltics were easily isolated if the Russians took the Suwalki gap – that was what this particular sub thread was about.
If you are talking about the Western powers using nukes if they were about to be completely steamrolled then, yes that was as far as I know actual NATO strategy if faced with a Russian attack.
Is that what you are referring to, because in the specific context I thought you were referring to a Russian use of nukes, which makes very little sense as they have no path to a better outcome doing so – after all there is no one suggesting a march on Moscow.
Only fools trust the Americans. The Biden administration is like a ship of fools already, so it is time for fools to jump on the ship of fools, a big Titanic.
Our problem is that we are forced to chose between the US and Russia, and pretty much all that have had the ‘pleasure’ of housing the Russians have had aa far worse experience than those that have housed the US.
But then I guess that even without the US we would in EU have applied sanctions to the Russians, so this is not driven by the US alone, but by our national interests as-well.
The fact is that Russia threatened no NATO nation, it is NATO which threatened Russia, starting with Clinton breaking the agreement to NOT move NATO East to Russia’s borders. That is why Russia has legitimate security issues with Ukraine. All the Ukrainians had to do was to provide that border security, no NATO missiles on the Russian border. But instead the Ukrainians became de facto NATO members, military NATO exercises in Ukraine deliberately were meant to provoke Russia. Wake up and smell the coffee, Taiwan is being set up now to provoke China. The USA made you choose, they are the enemy of the EU not Russia. Biden turned the gas off, not Putin. They imposed sanctions harming the European allies. The Europeans are American vassals, time to call it what it is. Your governments are run by morons and the same is true of the US, senile old people like Biden, Nancy and Mitch
McConnell, neocons morons.
American governments can’t be trusted, they brake agreements when they think it serves them. W. Bush started to end the ABM agreements, now there are no more nuclear weapon treaties left. In hindsight we know the USA would not honor them anyway. Only fools trust Biden, the Chinese learned, they watched how the US treat their allies.
Ukrainians and the Europeans are being used as bait and the continent will be the battlefield, that is what NATO is about. Europe will look like the ME, Iraq, Syria, look what the US did to the Middle East in just 20 years, a big trail of blood, death and destruction, that is democracy and freedom as they understand it.
Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Gaza nothing but blood, death and tears.
That is ad far as I know not part of any agreement, but I would be happy if you could find the agreement where this is written in.
There are no NATO nukes anywhere east of Germany, moving nukes closer would make NATO less safe – the Ukrainians would happily have signed any agreement never to have NATO nukes, that however was not enough for Putin. What Putin demanded was not restricted to no NATO nukes in Ukraine!
There has been no NATO exercise in Ukraine – again, if you can find the documents that show NATO exercises in Ukraine I would be happy to be proven wrong – it should be fairly easy as NATO exercises are made public and even if they were not owing to the numbers of people involved impossible to keep secret.
I would happily agree to the notion that Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan is very poorly timed – it is however difficult to sustain the idea that this is part of a preplanned strategy – neither the US nor the wider West stand to gain from having issues with China and Russia at the same time.
Neither the US nor Russia are the friends of EU – EU is a competitor that is life, however Putin is a threat to EU in the way he tries to secure control over energy supply lines to Europe – and owing to his actions in Ukraine he is a threat to our economies as he has forced the biggest expansion on military expenditures in modern times.
If we fail to make Putin’s actions in Ukraine an economic disaster for Russia then there is every reason to expect other countries to start wars for territorial conquest and this will therefore make military budgets consume a lot of the worlds resources in the many next years – so that is why Putin is a much bigger threat to just about everyone.
Biden turned the gas on – LNG gas is now arriving in Europe, so unless you think that Biden can turn off Russian gas I fail to see your point.
Gas indeed oil too is not on the list of sanctions, EU is free to import gas and oil from Russia – sanctions on these products are when applied applied by the Europeans themselves – and we are still free to buy Russian gas, so you appear to be misinformed.
I disagree, not applying sanctions will in the fairly near future cost us much more than having to do without Russian products and without selling products to the Russians – simply because of the contagion issue mentioned above.
We quite agree on this, the US has however not since the cold war (and likely much longer) annexed territory from any state, so somewhat easier to live with, mind you not easy.
This is not about trusting Biden but all about not trusting Putin – Biden is in this fairly irrelevant.
Given that there have been so many chances to actually escalate the war in Ukraine to a wider war between NATO and Russia, how do you see this as the goal of NATO or Biden?
I think you forget that they already have done this to Europe it was called WWII, and while we represent a democratic and very profitable market for US goods and support the US in many of their military actions why would they spoil that?
Yes but as pointed out not rally relevant for the present situation.
Don’t underestimate Russia and China, that is a big mistake, both have long histories, much longer than the US.
What makes you think that I underestimate them, and further to that what is the point of having a long history in this context?
If these countries capable of defending themselves why do they seek to join an alliance?
There is no northern eastern front. There is no war yet despite keyboard commandos like yourself.
As to cutting off Russia to the Baltic sea? More warmongering rhetoric on your part.
You conflate NATO with the USA. Defending Europe is the prerogative of European nations. Not the responsibility of US taxpayers. If you want to fund and fight wars, go ahead. With your own money and your own blood. Count me out.
NATO is an aggressive expansive bellicose alliance with blood on its hands. It has been complicit in numerous war crimes. It has been a tool for regime change that has resulted massive human misery. You are either ignorant of this, an apologist for these actions, or approve of such despicable acts.
At no time did Russia threaten them, what can they possibly gain? That is the question no one can answer.
Even Hitler respected the Swedish neutrality, Finland has no issue with Russia, both prospered, and they risk all that, for what?
Are you unfamiliar with the Winter War?
And Hitler did not respect Swedish neutrality, but insisted on access to Swedish telephone and telegraph lines, which he received. The Germans also transported troops and equipment through Sweden, most notably for the invasion of Russia.
I am not aware of that, Sweden also has not been exactly neutrally clean either, Hitler was in Norway, after all, war needs lots of fuel to run the tanks, ships and airplanes. But there were no big battles for the Baltic Sea. Sweden has been a de facto NATO partner for years.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Russo-Finnish-War
There is a reason for the EU/NATO setting up this anti Russia coalition and goading Putin into this war in Ukraine. The US convinced European leaders that Putin could be deposed and the Russian Federation broken up into resource regions for exploitation. This was a carrot that these countries could not resist. The claim that the Russians wanted to conquer Europe or recreate the USSR is absurd.
Could it be because the enemy they fear (Russia) has just demonstrated that they are willing to engage in war even when ordinary calculations would have told them that doing so would be too costly?
That terminology was used to analyze what a potential war would have the us face – so yes there is no north eastern front, but in a conflict there would be.
It is the rhetoric used by Russia and NATO – and why do you believe that looking at the threats and the way they change seen from the perspective of either Russia or NATO is warmongering?
I would agree, only the US policy makers have decided to look at it from a different angle. I have no desire to fund wars of aggression so I have to be prepared to stand by the sanctions
NATO has engaged in one war of aggression and it did not result in any NATO country gaining territory – NATO does not expand as in force itself upon new members, but only allows democratic states to apply for membership, a membership any of the existing members may veto.
I think you are conflating NATO with the actions of some of its member states – because outside the war on Serbia over Kosovo and the NATO led mission to Afghanistan (which was first launched post the US invasion – NB NATO did not invade the US did) – I can’t think of anywhere NATO has even been involved.
I have spoken out against especially the NATO led mission in Afghanistan, admittedly less so the Kosovo war, though I did and do acknowledge the war crime of the attack on the Chinese embassy – so what makes you think that I approve of any of that?
If we are to judge people just by this standard then you would be guilty of being an apologist for wars of territorial conquest – just by you not voicing opposition to Putin’s war of territorial conquest in Ukraine – and I have not made that conclusion – yet.
Syria. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Kosovo. Yemen. And others. This is what you obviously defend despite your threadbare claims.
The Ukraine regime successor installed by US coup murdered 14,000 in the Donbas BEFORE the Russians invaded Ukraine. NATO supported that action with arms and training. This is what you support.
Your claims that Finland and Sweden fear a Russian attack on them because Russia invaded a hostile nation that was controlled by a criminal regime installed by a hostile foreign power. That hostile foreign power was arming Ukraine for a proxy war against Russia.
Russia offered no threat to Finland or Sweden. But the Ukrainian regime, the USA and NATO certainly threatened Russia.
Of those only Kosovo involved NATO and I defend none of these actions – you seem very confused as to what NATO is and blame it for the actions of any one of its members.
If it was a coup then they have had enough democratic elections since to rectify that.
That is the number of killed on both sides in the Donbas and the separatists were supported by Russia and the NAZI Wagner group – so guilt fairly equally split.
No individual NATO countries supported Ukraine – but yes I do support NATO delivering arms and training Ukrainians to resist Putin’s war of territorial conquest.
Sure seeing as this involves you admitting that Russia was involved in a war they had started by fermenting insurrection in the Donbas – then yes Finland and Sweden joined as they did not acknowledge any US coup in Ukraine nor any Ukrainian threat to Russia – so if that is Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine then I guess that is why the Finish and Swedish populations changed their attitude to NATO membership.
Not how the Swedish nor the Finish populations saw this, and not how most od us living in Europe see it either NATO would newer invade Russia.
Nope. the resistance to the Kiev regime came from within Ukraine . Again see Jacques Baud Postil magazine. Your claims are illogical word salad.
NATO bases were used for the attacks on those countries so, yes, NATO was complicit. And the members of that alliance that were involved in those wars ARE NATO. Pretend to someone else. It doesn’t work with me.
Yes the insurrection came from within, but even the seperatist have admitted to having Russians like the Wagner group ‘helping’ them out – so quoting some Putin shill like Jacques Baud is no proof in this context – it is an uncontested issue i.e. that the Russians have been helping out the seperatists.
No these were not NATO bases but bases located in NATO member countries – you keep conflating NATO with its members, Russian federation bases were also used to attack the Afghans in case you did not know.
These were also UN member countries so according to your logic this is a UN war as-well.
See where this faulty logic takes you?
US taxpayers are very proficient at being screwed. We set the example for the rest of the world.
Their people will be screwed even more. See Ukraine and the ME and Iraq.
95-1 – the only time our useless Congress passes anything with huge bipartisan majorities are bills that expand the military industrial complex. Anything else even with wide popular support, good luck getting it through the defense lobbyist swamp.
I’m sure it will all work out …… for them.
Only if they’re demons living in another dimension. If they’re human, they will probably die in a nuclear war, just like the rest of us.
Cynical but true…
I am thinking NA and I think you may have an excellent plot for a film…
I have been plotting the course on potentially succumbing to extinction in a nuclear conflict… Having said that, however, I much rather prefer to have a hot fudge Sunday at the local ice cream shop…
True Heading: Warmongers in Senate Pass Another War Act in Scandinavia…!
These Scandinavian countries applied for membership – so the US senate voting to not object to their membership does not equate another act of war anywhere.
You are naïve.
What makes you think so?
As was noted earlier, but for the Kaliningrad anomaly, Sweden & Finland are the final pieces to closing the Baltic to the Russians. This is as strategically advantageous to the NeoCons, as destroying their 70 yr relationship with Russia is disadvantageous to the Swedes and Finns.
The inference is inescapable –Washington “put a bit of stick about”; it’s sanctions club, specific or general, stated or implied, the time honored gangster tactic.
Given that this is not how the Finns and the Swedish see this, how does this make me Naïve?
The Swedes and the Finns have joined the sanctions very happily and these enjoy broad support in the these countries, as the sanctions do in the wider Scandinavia and the Baltics plus Poland – Washington did not have to persuade a significant number of people in any of those countries, so I’m not sure I get your point!?
Ok, so you are contending they have happily acceded to the NeoCon project of global hegemony to be ruled by Washington under its ‘rules’? …and to pay the price of another Ukraine for the privilege?
No I’m only saying that the population of Finland and Sweden reassessed their position and opted for the lesser evil. the rest of what you suggest is very unlikely to have been part of most people’s evaluation.
Not at all unlikely. The very first battlefield.
Actually, given their craven treatment of Assange, Sweden doesn’t surprise me. There’s nothing there to resist Washington corruption. So, ok, likely no pressure needed there.
Finland, however, does. If as you say none of the classic Washington gagster MO was used, to think the Washington War State the lesser evil requires a shocking level of either racism (their Nazi past) or obtuseness.
Rather difficult to see how Washington could affect a very dramatic shift in public sentiment – I think Putin did far more to convince the Finish people.
The USA is in desperate need for war, there are too many problems at home they can’t deal with, the nation is really rotting from within. The nation does not invest in people, it invests in the war machine and senile Biden is sure he will be a great war president rescuing the nation, too senile to notice he is driving high speed over the cliff and his administration is just too insane to stop him.
Assuming that this was the case why on earth did they withdraw from Afghanistan, and why do they not participate directly in the war in Ukraine – and why do they spend so much less on the Ukraine war than they did in Afghanistan and Iraq?
A trait that the US shares with Russia.
When your scenario relies upon a very large number of people being insane, it is a good opportunity to reassess your assumptions, so here why do you think that there is a ‘do nothing’ alternative, which does not cost the US more than sticking to sanctioning the Russians and grind them down like they did the USSR in Afghanistan?
No, they were told perhaps forced by US to apply for NATO right after Russian’s Ukraine military operation to further contain Russia…!
I happen to live in Scandinavia, and I can tell you that you are flat out wrong – there was a shift in public opinion about NATO membership and the government of Sweden somewhat reluctantly decided to follow the popular sentiment.
in Finland the shift was faster and the government was also faster in accepting that this was the way to go. In Denmark even the last hold outs with regards to our NATO membership (already a member) also decided to follow the public sentiment as they were otherwise going to lose any hope political success.
There has been no pressure from the US, one would imagine that if there had been any they would have secured the support of Turkey before hand so as not to have that embarrassing intermezzo.
Thank you for sharing your point of view.
Especially after their failed coup attempt in 2012(?) Washington has no influence there. Erdogan openly plays the double game to Turkey’s advantage and his own power.
Washington brought about a change after Erdogan voiced his intention to veto, if I have understood scuttlebutt correctly by listing some restriction on what could be sold to Turkey.
The latest polls show that 3/4 of Finns support NATO membership and 60 percent of Swedes do. Doesn’t sound like they’re being forced.
And what the Finnish and Swedish public been told about the benefits of NATO membership…? Lies and brainwashing exactly like in US…!
No they have been told very few such things as their governments have not at any point over the last 70 years been trying to get their population to support membership – so if this was achieved then it was all done so thanks to Putin’s actions in Ukraine.
You make a lot of sweeping assumptions about nations I’m guessing you’ve never been to
It was just a few months ago that the US was telling Russia that placing troops along their border in Ukraine should not be considered a threat to Russia’s existence. I wonder why they didn’t take our word for it?
I guess Josh Hawley has one thing to be proud of…
Well, ok then!
The us, um nato, will be required to defend the common border that Finland has with Russia. Prob not any more absurd than defending the baltic borders but absurdity multiplied is still absurd.
One can see the “fine hand” of nuland in this stupidity as is the case of most of the stupidity coming out of state/cia- she has bragged in the past that the baltics and ukraine are on the front lines of democracy (sic).
“
The Finns did OK in 1940, back when Russia was still arguably a “superpower” of sorts.